true views on primitivism

[crimsonzephyr]

Alright, i think their have been some false restrictions and a bit of confusion. I hope some members will be able to say what they really think on the issue.

I, by no means, am a primitivist and I think a lot of other members will share some of the same views as me.

When someone says primitivism, they think of going back to the stone age with no scientific advances what so ever. I dont. That seems inhuman to me. I sometimes think "hey, maybe life would be better if ipods or nuclear weapons were not created". Arent nuclear weapons inhuman too? Just because i think this, some would call me a primitivist.

But just because i think some things that were created are bad or that life a few decades ago may be better than what we're living in now doesnt mean i am against moving forward. I would love to and am for moveing forward but i dont like how people can have "designer babies".

Anyone share the same problem?

[nvm]

well i don't know about ipods man, i m really into music and i love listening to music all the time. But nuclear bombs yeah. but the solution to all this is not primitivism. It is global socialism where we will live a life of cooperation and mutual help between the federations and not capitalist competition between the bourgois of different countries:P
and the solution to all the useless shit we see around us obviously createdbecause of this system of markets, profits and overproduction, so all this useless shit will end. I mean a TV, an ipod or a computer are essential but u know all the useless shit tht have no use but ppl buy them and they end up in their drawer after 2-3 weeks until they decide to clean up their room.:P

[victim77]

Alright, i think their have been some false restrictions and a bit of confusion. I hope some members will be able to say what they really think on the issue.

I, by no means, am a primitivist and I think a lot of other members will share some of the same views as me.

When someone says primitivism, they think of going back to the stone age with no scientific advances what so ever. I dont. That seems inhuman to me. I sometimes think "hey, maybe life would be better if ipods or nuclear weapons were not created". Arent nuclear weapons inhuman too? Just because i think this, some would call me a primitivist.

But just because i think some things that were created are bad or that life a few decades ago may be better than what we're living in now doesnt mean i am against moving forward. I would love to and am for moveing forward but i dont like how people can have "designer babies".

Anyone share the same problem?
I agree with moving forward but we need to move forward responsobly. We need to keep in mind the things around us and make sure we do not hurt them while improving our own lives. And also technology should help humans not make them useless.

[jake williams]

I'm sympathetic to a lot of "primitivists". Industrial society as it exists today cannot survive at all simply for environmental reasons. It's difficult to see how it could be done properly, but I think it can and if it can it certainly should. I don't like the idea, which seems to become part of things, that human innovation and technology are somehow inherently wrong, deviant from "nature".

[mykittyhasaboner]

i dont think industry is bad, but id prefer a industrial-rural mixed world rather than a completely "developed" industrial world. would this make me a primitivist?

[jake williams]

i dont think industry is bad, but id prefer a industrial-rural mixed world rather than a completely "developed" industrial world. would this make me a primitivist?
First, not really, but what are your reasons?

[chegitz guevara]

If I can't have my iPod, I don't want to be in your revolution.

[mykittyhasaboner]

First, not really, but what are your reasons?
i guess you could say i like the small community life, and would rather see an responsible/reasonable amount of industry,rather than total progressive industry. i realize industry is important for many luxuries we would like, and i do not disagree with the idea of large cities/industrial means of production at all, i just dont want all of earth consumed by it, and all naturality of the earth gone.

[mykittyhasaboner]

If I can't have my iPod, I don't want to be in your revolution.
haha! same here, music is my existence's meaning,(and participating in a socialist revolution ;))

[pave_the_planet]

I'm sympathetic to a lot of "primitivists". Industrial society as it exists today cannot survive at all simply for environmental reasons. It's difficult to see how it could be done properly, but I think it can and if it can it certainly should. I don't like the idea, which seems to become part of things, that human innovation and technology are somehow inherently wrong, deviant from "nature".

i pretty much agree with this post. i think the way humans are heading right now, with our blatant disregard for environmental impact is going to be the cause of our extinction.

[AGITprop]

Primitivists:

Counter-revolutionary

/End/

[BobKKKindle$]

i pretty much agree with this post. i think the way humans are heading right now, with our blatant disregard for environmental impact is going to be the cause of our extinction.This is actually interesting - I have recently been doing some reading on Eco-Socialism, and some Socialists (for example, James O'Connor) have argued that there are now two contradictions inherent in the capitalist system that must be resolved - the first is the "classical" contradiction, the contradiction between the further development of the forces of production and the relations of production (which has sometimes been interpreted to mean that Marxism is based on a productivist outlook) but there is also now a second contradiction - between the forces of production and the conditions that make the production of goods possible; that is, the destruction of the natural environment as a result of capitalism's expansionist dynamic. Arguably, this second contradiction is now more important than the first, because it poses a threat to the existence of humanity, and we not should consider the further development of productive forces as something that is inherently good or necessary.

[Dimentio]

This is actually interesting - I have recently been doing some reading on Eco-Socialism, and some Socialists (for example, James O'Connor) have argued that there are now two contradictions inherent in the capitalist system that must be resolved - the first is the "classical" contradiction, the contradiction between the further development of the forces of production and the relations of production (which has sometimes been interpreted to mean that Marxism is based on a productivist outlook) but there is also now a second contradiction - between the forces of production and the conditions that make the production of goods possible; that is, the destruction of the natural environment as a result of capitalism's expansionist dynamic. Arguably, this second contradiction is now more important than the first, because it poses a threat to the existence of humanity, and we not should consider the further development of productive forces as something that is inherently good or necessary.

Technology is generally making the usage of resources more efficient, it is the sheer volume of exploitment which is a threat to the natural environment which we are dependent upon.

[Cult of Reason]

The solution is better, and democratic, management of the resources at human disposal, not the destruction or stalling of technological progress.

[Lord Testicles]

I would love to and am for moveing forward but i dont like how people can have "designer babies".

Whats wrong with "designer babies"?

[crimsonzephyr]

By ipods i meant the product of the killer corporation: apple. I dont mean other types of mp3 players. Their are plenty of other & better mp3players that hold more and are cheaper; plus they dont support huge corporations that create false needs. I wouldnt be able to live without my music either.

I don't like designer babies because to me it is, in a way, Like creating one "superior race". Parents who design their babies will, no doubt, want theirs to be the best. They will pick that their son will be tall and muscular, etc. What im saying is that over time with designer babies their wont be any diversity.

I think parents should be able to turn a disease around before the baby is born; just not that they can chose hair color, height, skin color, etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

By ipods i meant the product of the killer corporation: apple. I dont mean other types of mp3 players. Their are plenty of other & better mp3players that hold more and are cheaper; plus they dont support huge corporations that create false needs. I wouldnt be able to live without my music either.

What's wrong with Apple? I mean, apart from the usual problems that accompany vast corporations? I don't like Apple, but that's because I can't stand their typical customers.


I don't like designer babies because to me it is, in a way, Like creating one "superior race". Parents who design their babies will, no doubt, want theirs to be the best. They will pick that their son will be tall and muscular, etc. What im saying is that over time with designer babies their wont be any diversity.

Nonsense. Even if every parent got the qualities that they wanted for their child (which they won't, for various reasons), not every parent wants the same thing for their child. You also fail to take into account natural genetic variation in areas the parents don't care or know about.


I think parents should be able to turn a disease around before the baby is born; just not that they can chose hair color, height, skin color, etc.

Why not? Not every parent is going to want their children to be white-skinned blue-eyed blonde boys.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is actually interesting - I have recently been doing some reading on Eco-Socialism, and some Socialists (for example, James O'Connor) have argued that there are now two contradictions inherent in the capitalist system that must be resolved - the first is the "classical" contradiction, the contradiction between the further development of the forces of production and the relations of production (which has sometimes been interpreted to mean that Marxism is based on a productivist outlook) but there is also now a second contradiction - between the forces of production and the conditions that make the production of goods possible; that is, the destruction of the natural environment as a result of capitalism's expansionist dynamic. Arguably, this second contradiction is now more important than the first, because it poses a threat to the existence of humanity, and we not should consider the further development of productive forces as something that is inherently good or necessary.

Technology is generally making the usage of resources more efficient, it is the sheer volume of exploitation which is a threat to the natural environment which we are dependent upon.

Both are good arguments warning about what Marx called "the common ruin of all classes" and what Luxemburg called "barbarism." :)

In any event, the materialistic analysis shown above, whether one agrees or disagrees with it (and I disagree completely with the author's emphasis on the second contradiction over the first :glare: ), helps discredit the reductionist notion that Marxism is a "complete, integral world-outlook" (Plekhanov).

[Vanguard1917]

By ipods i meant the product of the killer corporation: apple. I dont mean other types of mp3 players. Their are plenty of other & better mp3players that hold more and are cheaper; plus they dont support huge corporations that create false needs.


Which 'false needs'? And why is a smaller corporation better than 'huge corporations'?



This is actually interesting - I have recently been doing some reading on Eco-Socialism, and some Socialists (for example, James O'Connor) have argued that there are now two contradictions inherent in the capitalist system that must be resolved - the first is the "classical" contradiction, the contradiction between the further development of the forces of production and the relations of production (which has sometimes been interpreted to mean that Marxism is based on a productivist outlook) but there is also now a second contradiction - between the forces of production and the conditions that make the production of goods possible; that is, the destruction of the natural environment as a result of capitalism's expansionist dynamic. Arguably, this second contradiction is now more important than the first, because it poses a threat to the existence of humanity, and we not should consider the further development of productive forces as something that is inherently good or necessary.


Then that would mean abandoning Marxism altogether. It would mean retreating to a kind of idealist, pre-Marxist opposition to capitalism. From the perspective of historical materialism, capitalism is a historical mode of production subject to overthrow precisely because it restrains the development of the productive forces.

And it's a myth that the development of the productive forces has a destructive impact on our natural environment. In reality, this development ultimately improves our natural environment from a human perspective and increases our control over it.

Our natural environment has never before been more suited to human inhabitation than it is today. This is fundamentally due to the development of our productive capabilities.

[ComradeOm]

There was a time when this board, quite rightfully, restricted primitivists. Has there been a policy change on this?

[Crest]

Well, not so long ago (since I've been on this board, actually), I was a primitivist, and I'm still moderately sympathetic on that front. However, now I recognize that more is necessary, and adding primitivism to socialism doesn't work. Despite the arguments for primitivism, I now realize that the bad outways the good.

[shorelinetrance]

humans need to live in a smaller ecological niche, call me biocentric, but humans aren't the center of life on earth, at most the each can support 500 million without damage to the environment.

but within the smaller human existence, we still need a way of living, which is why i am a leftist.

call me primitivist, but thats how i think.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

humans need to live in a smaller ecological niche, call me biocentric, but humans aren't the center of life on earth, at most the each can support 500 million without damage to the environment.

Hey man, you got any like, evidence to go with that assertion?

[pave_the_planet]

There was a time when this board, quite rightfully, restricted primitivists. Has there been a policy change on this?
i just want to make this clear. i am NOT a primitivist. i am not against technology. i merely believe that humans need to be more aware of the impact we make on our environment.

[shorelinetrance]

Hey man, you got any like, evidence to go with that assertion?

besides the blatant empirical evidence?

maybe i was exaggerating, but most of worlds environmental problems are caused by overpopulation, and rampant technology babying the human race sure isn't helping.

basically what i am saying is, the world cannot support 6 billion people and not hurt the environment, without drastic reduction of pollution and industry, we come from nature, and we are using her up like a cheap whore everyday.

capitalists are way too anthropocentric.

[Kyznetsov]

How could anyone actually support primitivism, it makes no sense, primitivism existed as a social system which included it's own means and mode of production. To wish for primitivism is reactionary nostalgia at it's worst, it's like how fascists want to return to an old medieval style social structure.

[Vanguard1917]

How could anyone actually support primitivism, it makes no sense, primitivism existed as a social system which included it's own means and mode of production. To wish for primitivism is reactionary nostalgia at it's worst, it's like how fascists want to return to an old medieval style social structure.

If fascism can 'save the planet', then it's justified. This is logical outcome of putting 'nature' before people.

But it's not just marginal 'primitivists' who do this. The mainstream environmental movement openly calls for authoritarian measures to reduce living standards, population growth, industrial development, etc.

This is how George Monbiot, one of Britain's leading environmentalist writers, describes it:

'Unlike almost all the public protests which have preceded it, [environmentalism] is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but also against ourselves.'

[Kyznetsov]

That's where the environmental crowd go wrong, they fail to understand that degredation of the environment comes from the overproduction innate in bourgeois property, and the waste and duplication of effort therein. Such degredation comes from the bourgeois extraction of surplus value (profit) from their productive capital and using it too expand even more meaningless ventures which produce even more unneeded products, simply put it comes from not giving people labor self-determination.

[shorelinetrance]

That's where the environmental crowd go wrong, they fail to understand that degredation of the environment comes from the overproduction innate in bourgeois property, and the waste and duplication of effort therein. Such degredation comes from the bourgeois extraction of surplus value (profit) from their productive capital and using it too expand even more meaningless ventures which produce even more unneeded products, simply put it comes from not giving people labor self-determination.

very well put, but after the revolution, things are made for use not for profit, but even for the sheer use to sustain 6 billion people would in my opinion cause environmental damage and with ever growing technology i can only assume it will get worse.:lol:

[Vanguard1917]

Actually, it has been estimated that if our best current industrial and agricultural methods were applied worldwide, the world could sustain around 30 billion people.

Your neo-Malthusian logic is extremely reactionary and has nothing to do with anything progressive.



That's where the environmental crowd go wrong, they fail to understand that degredation of the environment comes from the overproduction innate in bourgeois property, and the waste and duplication of effort therein.


We have to be careful here by what we mean by the phenomenon of overproduction. For Marxists, overproduction under capitalism is when goods produced (i.e. commodities) cannot be distributed (i.e. sold) due to people not being able to afford to buy them on the market (i.e. due to supply outstriping demand).

What 'overproduction' does NOT mean is capitalism producing 'too much'. In reality, from the perspective of Marxism, the key problem with capitalist society is that it restrains the development of the productive forces. Capitalism cannot produce and distribute enough of the goods which people need (hence billions living in poverty and 2 billion people not having any access to electricity, for example).

For many environmentalists, however, capitalism is 'bad' because it gives way to too much economic progress (!) - too much industrial development, too much consumption, too high living standards, and so on. For Marxists and other progressives, on the other hand, capitalism needs to be overcome because it holds back economic development.

Hence Marxism and environmentalism being diametrically opposed.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Actually, it has been estimated that if our best current industrial and agricultural methods were applied worldwide, the world could sustain around 30 billion people.

Your neo-Malthusian logic is extremely reactionary and has nothing to do with anything progressive.



We have to be careful here by what we mean by the phenomenon of overproduction. For Marxists, overproduction under capitalism is when goods produced (i.e. commodities) cannot be distributed (i.e. sold) due to people not being able to afford to buy them on the market (i.e. due to supply outstriping demand).

What 'overproduction' does NOT mean is capitalism producing 'too much'. In reality, from the perspective of Marxism, the key problem with capitalist society is that it restrains the development of the productive forces. Capitalism cannot produce and distribute enough of the goods which people need (hence billions living in poverty and 2 billion people not having any access to electricity, for example).

For many environmentalists, however, capitalism is 'bad' because it gives way to too much economic progress (!) - too much industrial development, too much consumption, too high living standards, and so on. For Marxists and other progressives, on the other hand, capitalism needs to be overcome because it holds back economic development.

Hence Marxism and environmentalism being diametrically opposed.
that does not mean that we have to brutally damage the earth for our exploitation of its resources. from my understanding(correct me if im wrong), your saying that once a revolution were to occur, it would spur mass industrialization on every last bit of the earth, leaving no naturality or agrarianism at all. this would only lead to our extinction.

[Vanguard1917]

that does not mean that we have to brutally damage the earth for our exploitation of its resources


The earth has no value outside of human beings. We don't so much 'damage the earth', we utilise it in the interests of humanity.



from my understanding(correct me if im wrong), your saying that once a revolution were to occur, it would spur mass industrialization on every last bit of the earth, leaving no naturality or agrarianism at all.


No, not at all. Enough industrialisation to provide a world that is fit for human beings to the whole of humanity. Remember, the bulk of humanity, billions of human beings, still live in poverty and economic backwardness because of capitalism. The living standards of these people need to be raised at the bare minimum to levels which some currently enjoy in the West.

[careyprice31]

Alright, i think their have been some false restrictions and a bit of confusion. I hope some members will be able to say what they really think on the issue.

I, by no means, am a primitivist and I think a lot of other members will share some of the same views as me.

When someone says primitivism, they think of going back to the stone age with no scientific advances what so ever. I dont. That seems inhuman to me. I sometimes think "hey, maybe life would be better if ipods or nuclear weapons were not created". Arent nuclear weapons inhuman too? Just because i think this, some would call me a primitivist.

But just because i think some things that were created are bad or that life a few decades ago may be better than what we're living in now doesnt mean i am against moving forward. I would love to and am for moveing forward but i dont like how people can have "designer babies".

Anyone share the same problem?

yes I feel the same way. There are things I dont agree with today that people have made and people are trying to do and make but im not a primitivist.

[mykittyhasaboner]

The earth has no value outside of human beings. We don't so much 'damage the earth', we utilise it in the interests of humanity.
well thats a very anthropocentric way to look at it, call me a biocentrist but i find it hard to believe in equality and peace only among humans. killing animals and nature isnt what i call progress.

[shorelinetrance]

well thats a very anthropocentric way to look at it, call me a biocentrist but i find it hard to believe in equality and peace only among humans. killing animals and nature isnt what i call progress.


exactly, humans are nature.

[Vanguard1917]

well thats a very anthropocentric way to look at it


I'm a humanist. The emancipation of humans and the emancipation of 'nature' are not complimentary concepts - they are contradictory. In order for humans to be free, they need to subordinate nature to human interests.

'Biocentric' and 'deep green' positions are deeply reactionary and anti-human.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I'm a humanist. The emancipation of humans and the emancipation of 'nature' are not complimentary concepts - they are contradictory. In order for humans to be free, they need to subordinate nature to human interests.

'Biocentric' and 'deep green' positions are deeply reactionary and anti-human. im not anti human, if thats what your saying. and i am certainly not talking about reducing the living standard for humans, i think that we should be more responisble about how we go about industry, and to find alternative methods. because if we keep this pollution crap gowing on industry is only gonna make the condition of the earth bad and its going to hurt us in the end.

[shorelinetrance]

im not anti human, if thats what your saying. and i am certainly not talking about reducing the living standard for humans, i think that we should be more responisble about how we go about industry, and to find alternative methods. because if we keep this pollution crap gowing on industry is only gonna make the condition of the earth bad and its going to hurt us in the end.

beat me too it, you don't need to be a "reactionary" or a "anti-human" to see this.

[Vanguard1917]

im not anti human, if thats what your saying. and i am certainly not talking about reducing the living standard for humans, i think that we should be more responisble about how we go about industry, and to find alternative methods. because if we keep this pollution crap gowing on industry is only gonna make the condition of the earth bad and its going to hurt us in the end.


Two points:

1. The development of productive technology reduces pollution in the long term. Economically advanced capitalist countries are less polluted now than they were in the earlier stages of their industrial development - fundamentally because of progress in productive technology.

2. From a human perspective, far from getting worse, our natural environment has never been in better shape than it is today. The world has never before been more suited to human inhabitation. Human beings are living longer and healthier lives on earth than ever before. This is, in the main, a result of economic development.

[Vanguard1917]

i think that we should be more responisble about how we go about industry


That's not all your saying though, is it? You said some else: that we should not put human interests before the 'interests' of nature.

That is what is reactionary and anti-human.

[shorelinetrance]

You said some else: that we should not put human interests before the 'interests' of nature.


they should be parallel.

humans are essentially nature, but yet we destroy the environment daily so humans can live a few more years?

in the long run, when humans die off, nature will win like it always does.

think about how long nature and wildlife have been around, compared to the scope of humanity.

stop screaming "anti-human" and "reactionary", thanks.

[Vanguard1917]

stop screaming "anti-human" and "reactionary", thanks.

'Bio-centricism' and 'deep green' ideas are reactionary and anti-human. It's not enough to just say that they're not. They are.

[Vanguard1917]

humans are essentially nature, but yet we destroy the environment daily so humans can live a few more years?


We're not 'destroying the environment'. In reality, we're improving it and making it a better place for human life.

[mykittyhasaboner]

That's not all your saying though, is it? You said some else: that we should not put human interests before the 'interests' of nature.

That is what is reactionary and anti-human.
i dont see whats so reactionary about respecting nature and not wanting to destroy it. humans can use nature for their interests with out paving over it all. what im saying is that we shouldnt DESTROY nature, im not talking about human interests being less important that nature .for example: here in florida the evergaldes have been nearly completely destroyed just to build dumb penthouses and theme parks. i realize this is capitalism im talking about, but the same concept applies. so basicly my point is, humans dont need to pave over and industrialize the whole world just to use it, you can use it with out industrializing it all.

[shorelinetrance]

We're not 'destroying the environment'. In reality, we're improving and making it a better place for human life.

rolling over natural habitats with bulldozers isn't destroying the environment?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[mykittyhasaboner]

they should be parallel.
THATS what i was trying to say! i couldnt word it as easily though.:p

[Vanguard1917]

No one is talking about 'destroying nature'. We're talking about subordinating nature to human interests and making it serve human interests by changing it and building on it.



so basicly my point is, humans dont need to pave over and industrialize the whole world just to use it, you can use it with out industrializing it all.


So the developing world should not industrialise?

[shorelinetrance]

No one is talking about 'destroying nature'. We're talking about subordinating nature to human interests and making it serve human interests.



So the developing world should not industrialise?

of course we should, but capitalism goes hand in hand with all the environmental problems because of overproduction/overindustrialization of the world for the ever growing need for more useless commodities, and all that jazz, whats why I'm a leftist because things are made for use, not for profit in a ideal society.

in my opinion communism/socialism would be drastically easier on nature, and ultimately safer for us.

[mykittyhasaboner]

So the developing world should not industrialise?
the 3rd world needs better living standards, so yes they should industrialize(for the sake of the people who live in poverty), but RESPONSIBLY, and right now they only way they can industrialize is through capitalism, which wouldnt be responsible industrialization. so if your arguement is that the developing world should industrialze through capitalism then no. but in a liberated society the industrialization would occur to meet the people's needs, not to pave over land for more people/useless crap. as shoreline trance said, in a communist/socialist society development would be for use not for profit and control.

[Vanguard1917]

the 3rd world needs better living standards, so yes they should industrialize(for the sake of the people who live in poverty), but RESPONSIBLY, and right now they only way they can industrialize is through capitalism, which wouldnt be responsible industrialization. so if your arguement is that the developing world should industrialze through capitalism then no.


So you're opposed to the 'third world' industrialising right now, however they see fit?

[mykittyhasaboner]

So you're opposed to the 'third world' industrialising right now, however they see fit? thats not what i meant, i meant that, now, countries are mostly industrializing through capitalism. and capitalism doesnt give a shit about what damage they do. but if a poor country were to develop though socialism(unless the socialists dont care at all about the environment, which i doubt) would develop for the needs of better living standards, not profit, which would be better for us and nature.

[Vanguard1917]

thats not what i meant, i meant that, now, countries are mostly industrializing through capitalism. and capitalism doesnt give a shit about what damage they do. but if a poor country were to develop though socialism(unless the socialists dont care at all about the environment, which i doubt) would develop for the needs of better living standards, not profit, which would be better for us and nature.


Well, industrial development today in places like India and China is quite significantly increasing living standards for millions of people. In China, for example, extreme poverty has fallen from 53% in 1981 to 8% in 2001. Life expectancy has increased and infant mortality levels have dropped by around half in the last couple of decades.

Are you against the industrial growth which has allowed this to happen?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Well, industrial development today in places like India and China is quite significantly increasing living standards for millions of people. In China, for example, extreme poverty has fallen from 53% in 1981 to 8% in 2001. Life expectancy has increased and infant mortality levels have dropped by around half in the last couple of decades.

Are you against the industrial growth which has allowed this to happen?
i see what you are trying to say, and it is fortunate that living standards in china and india went up becuase of industrialization. so no im not against the "positive development" you describe. the development in china at least is responsible since they imposed their "green strategy". what i OPPOSE is the destructive industrialization of large land masses for profit, and the pollutants that irresponsible industrialization makes. since the industry is for profit under capitalism, its not really serving humanity, rather its serving the bourgeoisie.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm glad that you see that industrial development can have hugely beneficial effects for humanity.


since the industry is for profit under capitalism, its not really serving humanity, rather its serving the bourgeoisie.

Absolutely. I too want industry to serve mankind. Capitalism is anti-human because it puts profit before people. I think that human beings should always be put first, which is why i'm a socialist.

[mykittyhasaboner]

well i think nature and humans should be parallel since we live in nature, and in essence we are nature. industry can have good effects, and bad, but its important we try and do good with it. capitalism puts the stupid materialistic value of profit before both! so thats why Im a socialist. (and of course because living in capitalism sucks!:cursing:)

[Lord Testicles]

after the revolution, things are made for use not for profit, but even for the sheer use to sustain 6 billion people would in my opinion cause environmental damage and with ever growing technology i can only assume it will get worse.:lol:

So what do you think we should do with all those excess people, you know, after the revolution? How does genocide sound to you? or maybe voluntary mass suicide? or even better we could sacrifice them to Gaia!

Also could you please explain how more advanced technology does more damage to the enviroment? That bit puzzled me a bit.